skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
(I designed JavaScriptCore's optimizing JITs and its garbage collector and a bunch of the runtime. And I often benchmark stuff.)

Here's my advice for how to run benchmarks and be happy with the results.

- Any experiment you perform has the risk of producing an outcome that misleads you. You have to viscerally and spiritually accept this fact if you run any benchmarks. Don't rely on the outcome of a benchmark as if it's some kind of Truth. Even if you do everything right, there's something like a 1/10 risk that you're fooling yourself. This is true for any experiment, not just ones involving JavaScript, or JITs, or benchmarking.

- Benchmark large code. Language implementations (including ahead of time compilers for C!) have a lot of "winning in the average" kind of optimizations that will kick in or not based on heuristics, and those heuristics have broad visibility into large chunks of your code. AOTs get there by looking at the entire compilation unit, or sometimes even your whole program. JITs get to see a random subset of the whole program. So, if you have a small snippet of code then the performance of that snippet will vary wildly depending on how it's used. Therefore, putting some small operation in a loop and seeing how long it runs tells you almost nothing about what will happen when you use that snippet in anger as part of a larger program.

How do you benchmark large code? Build end-to-end benchmarks that measure how your whole application is doing perf-wise. This is sometimes easy (if you're writing a database you can easily benchmark TPS, and then you're running the whole DB impl and not just some small snippet of the DB). This is sometimes very hard (if you're building UX then it can be hard to measure what it means for your UX to be responsive, but it is possible). Then, if you want to know whether some function should be implemented one way or another way, run an A:B test where you benchmark your whole app with one implementation versus the other.

Why is that better? Because then, you're measuring how your snippet of code is performing in the context of how it's used, rather than in isolation. So, your measurement will account for how your choices impact the language implementation's heuristics.

Even then, you might end up fooling yourself, but it's much less likely.
Official Jeppeson North Pole instrument approach plate [pdf]
They did, as never before were people talking to a chat bot to have code generated. Seems different to me, but please more talking down and pettiness.
Best to use an agent that prompts you for signing. 1Password and Yubikey do this. Are there others?
that experience still exists flying private. You submit a passport photo the day before for prechecking then get a quick verify at the terminal. Its max 45 minutes from arrival to walking to plane and going. There is no reason we couldnt be doing that for all flights combined with marginally better pilot security. We arent because government has been (n the path of stupid for so long that it cant seem to change
Ah yes the petty responses of the “bigger” “smarter” person.
You also get to write off the interest on your taxes, if you deduct. So the total “current dollars” is actually lower. It seems negligible, but is a real number to those with high incomes and high cost of living.
Worth mentioning also, it apparently has non-configurable (to off) root:root SSH on by default, according to the comments ...
Wow, pomega is such a terrible name for it!
With no account, I can no longer read comment chains on Twitter. It will only show the direct comment linked to. If you go to the user's page, all you see are the promoted tweets. There's no way to access the timeline sequentially anymore.

With those restrictions, you're writing only to a captive audience if you post on Twitter.

So you are technically correct, you literally cannot post these things on Twitter.
Santa's instrument approach charts (2015)
When companies go public - it’s no longer about running the store/company well or efficiently. It is an extractive process as much as possible at least in the last 20 years. Public companies think quarter to quarter and no longer think long term. Only smaller private companies are able to invest in the long run and invest in the future. The only group of public companies are that can swim against this tide are the tech darling like intel, apple, Microsoft, google.

I worry that the corporate quarter to quarter mentality is ruining American corporation that is taking American capitalism to a new low.

Maybe Nordstrom has a chance if they are private in the long run.
Like many online sentiments I think it's reactionary, specifically to the stereotype of the liberal atheist DINK milliennial couple.
I must say this is tremendous. There are many different AIGC explorations in 3D topics, with such high quality dataset, it will greatly assist current workflow and accelerate the 3D creative evolution.
Study: Acceleration of Universe expansion doesn't need "Dark Energy" explanation
> "Rust isn't designed for efficiency"

Citation needed, because Graydon Hoare the original Rust creator (who has not been involved with Rust development for quite a long time) wrote about how the Rust that exists is not like the original one he was designing:

- "Tail calls [..] I got argued into not having them because the project in general got argued into the position of "compete to win with C++ on performance" and so I wound up writing a sad post rejecting them which is one of the saddest things ever written on the subject. It remains true with Rust's priorities today"

- "Performance: A lot of people in the Rust community think "zero cost abstraction" is a core promise of the language. I would never have pitched this and still, personally, don't think it's good. It's a C++ idea and one that I think unnecessarily constrains the design space. I think most abstractions come with costs and tradeoffs, and I would have traded lots and lots of small constant performancee costs for simpler or more robust versions of many abstractions. The resulting language would have been slower. It would have stayed in the "compiled PLs with decent memory access patterns" niche of the PL shootout, but probably be at best somewhere in the band of the results holding Ada and Pascal."

https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/307291.html
His memory is definitely rivaled. During the recent speed chess championships broadcast they had Magnus, Hikaru, Alireza, and some other top players play some little games testing memory, response rate, and so on.

The memory game involved memorizing highlighted circles on a grid so even something ostesibly chess adjacent. Magnus did not do particularly well. Even when playing a blindfold sim against 'just' 5 people (the record is 48) he lost track of the positions (slightly) multiple times and would eventually lose 2 of the games on time.

But where Magnus is completely unrivaled is in intuition. His intuition just leads him in a better direction faster than other top players. This is both what makes him so unstoppable in faster time controls, and also so dangerous in obscure openings where he may have objectively 'meh' positions, but ones where the better player will still win, and that better player is just about always him.
No idea if they did this on purpose but this is exactly what can happen with board game AIs when they know they will win. Unless the evaluation function explicitly promotes winning sooner they will get into an unbeatable position and then just fardle around because they have no reason to win now if they know they can do it later.
The company not existing at all might be worse though? I think it’s too easy to make blanket judgments like that from the outside, and it would be the job of regulation to counteract adverse incentives in the field.
In the non-tech world they're called schmoozers. They were either former athletes, quick witted, good looking, well spoken and/or cockie. Everyone knew they were incompetent, but they seemed to always get away with it because they were likable.

When they were in over their head on a project, they were always assigned someone who could bail them out. Because of this they always increased the work load of others, thus they were loathed. What usually helped us was they would get promoted, then they became useful because then we could control the projects.
The first of Shakespeare plays predate the first published English documentary. It was uncommon for spellings to be inconsistent or change between writings to be easier for a particular audience (in this case, actors) to be able to read.
..."it's a testament to the rich tapestry"...
When I'm coding, most of my time is spent thinking about the right structure, organization, or solution. Or, debugging something that isn't acting as expected (which, again, is mostly thinking).

I spend comparably little time actually writing the code.

If there is an IDE available that works well out of the box, I'll certainly use whatever automation is available. But often it is broken, incomplete, slow, inaccurate, etc. and rather than spend countless hours fine-tuning some automation / LSP workflow that is going to break when I move to a different project anyway, I just deal with whatever features are missing.

This also has the advantage that I can quickly move to other tools, other languages, other computers, other companies, etc. without requiring days of setup and re-accommodation.

I do have a pretty good memory, which is probably a large part of why this is effective for me.
Mostly agree, although Pete is kind of a jerk if he’s self aware enough to notice exactly what he’s doing to repeatedly and intentionally exploit this pattern of ignorance in management anyway.

But engineers blaming engineers that benefit from being a rational actor inside the mainstream incentive structure of corporate life is basically a distraction, because it gives management a pass for their mismanagement. Like, you don’t have to know the details, but it’s pretty fundamental to understand / recognize / triage tech debt.
Return to NSA's Menwith Hill with 60 Minutes (2000)
Challenging in the sense that you have to work through positions you're not very practiced at. Not "challenging" in the sense that you might lose the game though.
There are two possible outcomes:

- The Julii infiltrate and take over,

- A company run by Julii from the outset comes to dominate the market.

This is because "what we actually make" is a specialist skill, whereas business, sales, operations, financial planning and governance, HR, culture, legal are broadly generalist; and the bigger you get, the greater the important all that stuff becomes, relatively, to core execution on the product and its tech.

Which is not to say the importance of the latter ever goes to zero, but as a ratio it's like 1/log N or so.
As an analogy, imagine if the consequence of Oracle doing Oracle-as-usual things was worse medical outcomes. But they did them anyway for profit.

That's basically medical information system vendors.

The fact that the US hasn't pushed open source EMRs through CMS is insane. It's literally the perfect problem for an open solution.
In the beginning, I donated about $10k to Wall Street. Got smarter, went to university for first finance, then economics. Learned to actually trade. Crushed the market, made nearly $100k annually with starting capital of only $30k. Then realized my life expenses were a significant part of that, I didn't have enough capital to grow it fast enough to both live life and accumulate capital to make trading more worthwhile than simply getting a job with that education. Getting a job + having easy passive investments (like a market fund) was less hours, less stress and more profitable than being a full time trader starting with a middling amount of capital. Also trading is less fulfilling than things like building, entrepreneurship, having a normal job plus hobbies, etc... Lots of traditional entrepreneurial paths also beat the market pretty handily.
Almost nobody except fringe groups means "Marxism-Leninism" when they say "socialism". I'm sure you understand this.
Really sorry you're going through this. I hope you're finding a few bright moments here and there. 5 was still a difficult, draining age in our house, but it gets easier. You'll find your kid playing more independently soon, maybe even just wanting to do their thing while you do yours, and that'll be a relief. It took me a long time to accept that life is different now, and to not obsess over the differences. Once I did, I suddenly found myself motivated to pick up old hobbies and felt more of a connection to my kiddo. Hang in there, and take care of yourself.
> I'm still unclear on why the Fed would lower interest rates

There's a lot of space between where they started (0%) and where they topped (5.5%) and where they are now (4.5%).

As you approach a stop sign, do you wait to brake until you're at the sign or do you start slowing down as you approach?

At 5.5% the Fed became concerned (and I think rightly so) that they could overshoot into deflation territory so they stated easing to what they consider a current neutral position - somewhere in the 2.5% - 3% range.
Agreed, but I'm still learning it all, and it does a great job defining my curriculum.
Isn't that just reinventing the heap, but with indexes in a vector instead of with addresses in memory?
I'm not sure I understand the point of mentioning the language. If it was written in a language like c but still "shoved down your throat" would you still have qualms with it? Do you just like things written by corporate entities and those languages tend to be popular as they scale to larger teams well? Or do you dislike software that is too large to understand and optimized for the needs of larger teams? Because it doesn't matter if it's software or some grouping of distinct software - at some point there will be a point at which it becomes challenging to understand the full set of software.

If I were to create an analogy, it feels like you're complaining about civil engineers who design skyscrapers to be built out of steel and concrete instead of wood and brick like we use for houses. Sure the former is not really maintainable by a single person but it's also built for higher capacity occupancy and teams of folks to maintain.
Great for cgi and video games
> But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic

That's actually largely the case in Western/Middle Europe.

> marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party)

Which are often not seen as socialist. Social/socialist typically signals that the party is inside the system supporting political spectrum. "communist/marxist" usually signals that the party is at least partly outside the system supporting political spectrum.
Sounds like shoeshine boy time.
And in C++, those changes would likely shoot yourself in the foot without warning. The borrow checker isn't some new weird thing, it's a reification of the rules you need to follow to not end up with obnoxious hard to debug memory/threading issues.

But yeah, as awesome as Rust is in many ways it's not really specialized to be a "default application programming language" as it is a systems language, or a language for thorny things that need to work, as opposed to "work most of the time".
The Uncle Roger character is so fascinating to me.

I can't shake the feeling that the popularity is largely from playing out stereotypes for a mass audience. It feels ideologically similar to a minstrel show in ways that I don't have a vocabulary to describe accurately.
What a daft claim to make. A simple web search would have informed you that Twitter has over half a billion monthly active users.
How do you prove you’re good?
I use it for months now.

It's very good. Some points that can be improved:

- Search inside the description of the bookmark, it doesn't.
- Update to a new version of hoarder. Since the software isn't stable, it's a real problem.
- Related to the previous point => More archive formats.

Otherwise, it's a very good software. Easy to use, nice front-end, good UX.
It looks good, are there any more tools? looks like not too much.
Basically what you’re saying is that the healthiest society is the one whose population is growing the fastest?

I would think life expectancy would be a better measure of a healthy vs unhealthy environment.
My best time working with project management on a team used this method. Well, we used the back of a whiteboard but the post-its were the real killer feature.
This is so cool; LFTI!
It does allow content retrieval so it does save local copy. And allow even downloading videos using yt-dl.
I find it funny that the US is so obsessed with infantry firearms and surgical strikes that people think those are the best "ways to go" for certain things. I guess not a bad thing considering we don't need any improved means for those stuffs...
Well that's interesting, I presumed the so called biodegradability of PLA was more of a joke since you need to compost it, but the body is fairly warm I suppose.

Regardless the problem is not the plastic itself, but the plasticizers and other additives that leech out once you decompose it from what I understand. For medical use I would expect it's fairly stringent on what goes into it, but for something like tea bags I'm less sure.
Something old and something new in electric propulsion
Show HN: Maple – secure and semi-automatic coupon finder alternative to Honey
Hey HN, I have been using this Chrome extension locally for a while, due to the recent Honey fiasco, I am posting it to the Chrome store. This extension is just a faster way of checking the top 100 coupon codes at checkout, all the code is client-side so feel free to add to that list!
I think you are maybe looking for offense. If I say “I consider them a good friend” it doesn’t bring into question the strength of the friendship.
Congrats on winning the lottery, most people do not.
The magic of chess is in matchmaking.

I enjoy using nearly pure intuition when playing so I just use that strategy and see the same ~50/50 win percentage as most players because my ELO is based on how I play past games and there’s millions of online players across a huge range of skill levels.

There’s nothing wrong with staying at 1000 or even 300 if that’s what it takes to enjoy the game. It’s only if you want to beat specific people or raise your ELO that forces you to try and optimize play.
It’s strange I started to observe some of this, but seems like the “bad designers” have no concept of design. They’re happy to have their code reviewed but won’t go over the design before starting to write code.

I still think you could have multiple levels of skill across design and code implementation though
The Power of Small Acts of Inclusion
Isn't that the opposite of the intended implementation? I don't write Rust, but I think your implementation will always return either `None` or the "fallback" value with the `"-default"` key. In the article, the crucial part is that if the first `map.get_mut()` succeeds, that is what is returned.
https://slideslive.com/39006680/adversarial-policies-beat-su...

Seems to be a good intro.

Go uniquely has long periods of dead-man walking, as I like to call it. Your group might be dead on turn 30, but your opponent won't formally kill the group until turn 150 or later.

If your opponent knows the truth all the way back in turn30, while you are led down the wrong path for those hundreds of turns, you will almost certainly lose.

This adversarial AI tricks AlphaGo/KataGo into such situations. And instead of capitalizing on it, they focus on the trickery knowing that KataGo reliably fails to understand the situation (aka it's better to make a suboptimal play to keep KataGo tricked / glitched, rather than play an optimal move that may reveal to KataGo the failure of understanding).

Even with adversarial training (IE: KataGo training on this flaw), the flaw remains and it's not clear why.

------

It appears that this glitch (the cyclical group) is easy enough for an amateur player to understand (I'm ranked around 10kyu, which is estimated to be the same level of effort as 1500Elo chess. Reasonably practiced but nothing special).

So it seems like I as a human (even at 10kyu) could defeat AlphaGo/KataGo with a bit of practice.
One the one hand adding radios (WiFi, LTe) to KVM over IP device sounds tempting on the other hand given the track record of KVM over IP devices it sound terrifying to give them the ability of bypass points of policy enforcement.
Yes, but I've never been an employed programmer -- I lost my job over a year ago, and basically, because I still have the chance to upskill and live with my parents, I've used the last year to work part-time and flesh out some projects and become more employable overall.

I'll be starting a job next month, because at this point I probably gotta get back on the hamster wheel and work into some professional progress, but I'm hoping this is my last non-programming job. The last 13 months have absolutely been worth the price of admission.
I saw an ad for Packard Bell on Instagram yesterday. I looked it up quickly, apparently they've been selling computers this whole time, owned by different parent companies though.
Healthcare suffers from strict regulatory requirements, underinvestment in organic IT capabilities, and huge integration challenges (system-to-system).

Layering any sort of data standard into that environment (and evolving it in a timely manner!) is nigh impossible without an external impetus forcing action (read: government payer mandate).
It didn't appear in the last two years. We have had deep learning based autoregressive language models (like Word2Vec) for at least 10 years.
I feel the same way about most cloud-native services.

Sure, Lambda is fine for that small app, but I once inherited a 100k/month mess of SQS, Step Functions, API Gateway, Cognito, Lambda, ECS, AppSync, S3 and Kinesis that made me want to go into carpentry.

It wasn't simple, it was't quick to make, it wasn't cheap, it wasn't fast, and no: it did not scale (because we reached the limit of Step Functions).
Netflix sues Broadcom's VMware over US virtual machine patents
"sufficiently large machine" ... It's a thought experiment. Leibniz didn't have a computer, but he still imagined it.
How many parameters LLama do you use?
What framework do you use to launch it?
This is the best answer. From a strictly rational perspective, parenthood makes little sense. The negatives are obvious and intimidating, while the benefits (which are not rational but instinctual) are less clear. Happily, oxytocin is a helluva drug. It will rearrange your universe in the course of an hour, such that all of its substance revolves around a splotchy, squinty little ape.

I highly recommend it.
I was more suspicious that they refuse to engage in the concept of productivity at all. Why bother using computers in the first place, then? There are more beautiful things in the world to contemplate than code.
Not just true of code but of everyday life. Just look at our financial system : extreme complexity, designed to exploit the masses and benefit the few, it still sells.
As a native german speaker I find the brandname hilarious :)

Because that 'Peng', like 'Päng' translates as 'Bang!', so something coming apart with a loud bang, or shall we say: 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' ?

The X could be interpreted as X-tra, so super likely, as a bonus :)
> People are very capable of good design but are not given time to do good design.

So they're only good in theory given infinite time, but not in the real world where someone's waiting to be able to use what they're working on?